Subject: [ietf-dkim] Which tags are required?

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 17:31:58 -0700

Section 6.1.1 says:
    If the DKIM-Signature header field does not contain any of the tags
    listed as required in Section 3.5 the verifier MUST ignore the DKIM-
    Signature header field and return PERMFAIL (signature missing
    required tag).
It would be good to list all of them in 6.1.1. From looking at 3.5, I 
think the list is:
v
a
b
bh
d
h
s
Does that match the list in other people's minds?
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 23:45:00 -0400

> It would be good to list all of them in 6.1.1.

While we're here, I'll point out something I missed until Paul set this 
sentence out separately: the sentence's negative is done badly, leaving 
it open to misinterpretation (it looks like it means "if NONE of them 
are there").  I think this works better:

"If any tag listed as 'required' in Section 3.5 is missing from the 
DKIM-Signature header field, the verifier [...]."

"Omitted" might be better than "missing"; I'm not sure.

Barry

--
Barry Leiba, Internet Messaging Technology  ([email-masked])
http://www.research.ibm.com/people/l/leiba
http://www.research.ibm.com/spam
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

---

From: Tony Hansen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 07:56:55 -0400

> DKIM-Signature header field, the verifier [...]."

+1

> "Omitted" might be better than "missing"; I'm not sure.

+1

	Tony Hansen
	[email-masked]

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 09:01:43 -0700

> "Omitted" might be better than "missing"; I'm not sure.

+1 to the concern and the approach to alternate wording.

Perhaps:

If the DKIM-Signature header field does not contain one or more of the tags
listed as 'required' in Section 3.5, then the verifier [...]

d/

-- 

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 11:00:18 -0700

At 11:45 PM -0400 7/17/06, Barry Leiba wrote:
>While we're here, I'll point out something I missed until Paul set 
>this sentence out separately: the sentence's negative is done badly, 
>leaving it open to misinterpretation (it looks like it means "if 
>NONE of them are there").  I think this works better:
>

I would prefer "Unless every tag listed here is included in..."

And I really would prefer the list be here, not manually culled from 
3.5 by each reader of the spec.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

---

From: Sandy Wills <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 14:24:16 -0400

> I would prefer "Unless every tag listed here is included in..."

"The set of mandatory tags is listed here.  If any tag in this mandatory 
list is missing from the DKIM-Signature header field, the verifier must 
return PERMFAIL...."

(With the optional preface of "As a service to implementers, debuggers, 
and our sanity,")

-- 
Unable to locate coffee.
Operator halted.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 11:32:37 -0700

> I would prefer "Unless every tag listed here is included in..."

That casts the language as a negative (or exceptional, or the like.)  Humans do
a better job of comprehendingaffirmative forms better that exceptional,
exclusionary, or negative forms.

> And I really would prefer the list be here, not manually culled from 3.5
> by each reader of the spec.

+1.

d/
-- 

  Dave Crocker